The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named

The BBC pits six lawyers against one questioning blogger, Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky, who was making an FOI request for the 28 names. In the process, the judge demonstrates he has partisan views on climate change.

As expected, the BBC has won its legal battle against blogger Tony Newbery. Newbery wanted the list of “scientific experts” who attended a BBC seminar at which, according to the BBC Trust, they convinced the broadcaster to abandon impartiality and take a firmly warmist position when reporting climate change.

When the Beeb refused to divulge who these people were and who they worked for, Newbery took the corporation to an information tribunal. Now the names and affiliations of the 28 people who decided the Beeb climate stance – acknowledged by the Corporation to include various non-scientists such as NGO people, activists etc – will remain a secret.

…

The other lay judge, former Haringey councillor Narendra Makanji, appears to have strong views on climate-change skeptics, as he tweeted here this year: “Michael Hintze who dines at no 10 is backer of Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate change deniers fronted by Nigel Lawson.” We asked the Information Commissioner’s Office how a lay judge with such partisan views on climate change came to oversee hearings so closely coupled to the subject of climate. Campaigning lay judges would not normally be appointed to sit on such a case, a spokesman noted, and concerns would be legitimate grounds for appeal.

Andrew Orlowski of The Register has written a very accurate and fair account of happenings at the Central London Civil Justice Centre last Monday. This was the first day’s hearing of my appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that the BBC were correct to refuse a request for the names of the ‘best scientific experts’ who attended their seminar entitled ‘Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting’ in January 2006. This expert advice was cited on page 40 of the BBC Trust’s excellent report ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century’ as the authority for a very important editorial decision.

I’ve written about this very strange seminar here and many other times at Harmless Sky.

Tony Newbery has lost his FOI claim for the details of the attendees at the BBC’s climate change seminar. The decision was issued in an extraordinarily short period of ten days (it normally takes four weeks).

Footnote: Given that the BBC is publicly funded, and has denied public disclosure of the information which by law should be public, this list of 28 won’t likely stay secret very long. In every organization, there’s usually a few people with a conscience. As we’ve seen in Climategate, it only takes one. – Anthony

Not a surprise. The BBC has, for a long time, been horribly partisan most obviously on N Ireland, Sri Lanka and Syria as well as Climate. I have, for some time now, ceased to get my news from the BBC because I expect ALL news to be heavily slanted to fit with this PUBLIC broadcaster’s world-view.
I would prefer the truth (in as far as that is possible).

Goodness me. Here we have an organisation funded from public funds that has been accused of covering up internal claims of child abuse AND spending large amounts of money to maintain secrecy about its Climate Science investigates.
Surely this is unprecedented or is it just par for the course nowadays?

e BBC lurches from crisis to crisis and this once highly respected institution is fast becoming the object of ridicule.

Their fawning adulation of paedophiles, such as Jimmy Saville, to the promotion of junk science, especially in regards to ‘climate change’ has demonstrated what a truly amateurish organisation it is, run by hugely overpaid bureaucrats concerned only with maintaining the status qui.

Their insistence on secrecy means it is probably a safe bet that the identification of these 28 individuals would expose the BBC to more ridicule and derision.

The BBC is in deep s–t at the moment after the disclosure of a name of a man accused of child molestation.This disclosure had no evidence on which to base it apart from the hearsay evidence from a victim. The victim later retracted his accusation because the named man was not the correct one! Tabloid justice at its worst. BBC is now grovelling so would be a good time to repeat this FOI request. Give it a try.

How do we know whether they were Chatham House rules at the time (did the BBC just make this up, after the event?) I ask, because one of the speakers, felt perfectly able to put it down in a list of conferences seminars attended, in his departments annual report. (which shows at the VERY least, the BBC has no excuse to not publish names.

November 2005
Bravo, M.T. ‘Where is upstream? Science and its publics for International Polar Year (2007-2008)’, Science and Technology Studies Workshop, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge

The above implies to me (ie a routine listing) it was just another routine CMEP style seminar, and the secrecy requirement after the event, is just an excuse, so that the BBC doesn’t get embarassed by this seminar..

its not the BBC that is the problem its the UN mandatate given to it self that is the problem. Broadcasters allready promised to cooperate directly to the UN and you are just focusing on a symptom not the reason behnd medias loyalty to the UN. The loy and corruption of independence and integrety is guaranteed through informal meetings. They ar not that stupid that they leave transcripts or written agreements behind. Its implemented by pressure and group pressure.

Considering the trouble the BBC has put itself in with shoddy investigative standards on Saville and the false accusations Lord McAlpine this might be the proper moment for whistleblowes to step forward to crack this cartel of misinformation on global warming.

Apart from their Pyrhhic victory over Tony Newberry, the row over the Newsnight programme is getting worse and worse. Legal proceedings are threatened and the new chief shows yet again that he has the cojones, savvy and attention span of a small female goldfish.

I think we can divine a probable list and publish it here. Start with Richard Black and work your way down the food chain.
_________________________________
The climategate e-mails would give good clues.

Soon I’ll be sending a cheque for £145 to pay for my TV licence, which finances the BBC. I think I’ll include a note to say how much I resent being forced to pay for a corrupt left-wing organisation that ignored child abuse for decades, that attempted a cover up over Jimmy Savile, that is now actively taking part in a witch hunt against innocent people and whose coverage of the EU and climate change is completely biased.
Chris

The BBC has been a laughing stock here in the UK for a few years now. Even the superb series “Wild China” included the warning that the Himalayan Glaciers were going to vanish within 30 years…. They long ago lost control of the tightness of their output and contantly produce dubious material. The coverage of the current sex abuse scandal is amateur to say the least. So called broadcasting “professionals” on six figure salaries paid by the public are on a slippery slope though because the ship it seems has completely lost its rudder…..hopefully one day soon it will loose its funding completely and have to compete in the real world.

Every UK “subject” is ordered to pay an annual fee for every TV. Directional signal vans prowl the streets looking for pirate signal receivers, CCTV cameras monitor every corner and auditors monitor every sale. Government extortion provides the self-bleeping Beeb lavish propaganda budgets and over paid, under trained, myoptic staff for this Britania Prada.

If you don’t like the BBC just read about their pension plan. From failed investments in the green economy to a sudden conservative switch to reduce liability (i.e. from stocks to bonds) they have a 2.6 billion pound shortfall (representing 22% of the fund). And now their bond yields are dropping (snicker).

Wonderful `though it would be to see the 28 names, the probability is that because they contain some royalty and other `top people` we shall never know. So much for the freedom of information. The `people` always end up being taken for a ride.

Public activities financed by public funds (taxes), shall/must in a democratic society NEVER engage in covert activities. This is only possible for special authorities, which shall establish law and order. NEVER EVER A MEDIA COMPANY! (A media company should in times of crisis convey important and accurate information to the public! If it isn’t possible to trust the company in peacetime because ex. endless propaganda, how can anyone trust them in times of crisis? The government has then lost important information flows! “The light is on, but no one is home … “)

Furthermore, a judge who is not acting objectively – misconduct. If the law works as supposed in the UK, then this judge has problems with his future career …

This is slightly similar to how it is in Sweden, where the (“advertising free“) national TV channels do “advertising” in order for people to pay the television license. As a reason, they say they produce “good“, “objective” and (political / religious) “independent” programs. With several climate threat fiction shows per month, all the arguments fails …

A starting point might be to do a search for academics who have themselves down as climate advisors for the BBC in 2006. Academics are an egoistical bunch (I should know) and love to beef up their CVs with such stuff, it doesn’t exactly tell you who was there but it gives you a starting point. For example-
Stephen Peake (University of Cambridge) for example has himself down as ‘Academic consultant for the 2006 OU-BBC climate change season.’
Dr Matt Prescott and Prof Robert Spicer are anothers who name themselves in their online CVs as climate advisors to the BBC in 2006.
Just a thought, besides why should all of this be so secret, what have they to hide?

Mmmmm my fading memory tells me that someone who did attend the secret meeting has reported openly on what was said. I am sure I have seen his words on the web more than once. I am sure that one of your readers, Anthony, will be able to help?

I have never known any other area to be associated with so much corruption as in relation to man-made global warming. Whether it’s governments, government agencies, academics, or the media including the BBC, the stench of corruption to preserve, at all costs, the IPCC’s mantra is putrid!

Tribunal judge David Marks QC supported the broadcaster, cut off several avenues of questioning from Newbery, and agreed with the BBC that it can be considered a “private organisation”, despite the fact that it is funded by a compulsory tax.

That fact alone, and never mind the blatantly biased judge, is grounds for an appeal and/or a judicial review.

One of the bbc’s own journalis(tsteve hewlett)last night on it’s Newsnight programme stated a poll taken for the BBC showed that 76% of the people polled do not trust the BBC
As for a whistle blower at the BBC no way…big wage every month and a very big, fat ,pension..who’s going throw that away…..

Another attendee is D. Steve Widdicombe of Plymouth University, see page 13 here

“Steve Widdicombe attended a “Communicating Climate Change” workshop at the
BBC television centre (26 January 2006). The aim of the workshop was to provide
expert opinion to the BBC on subjects relating to climate change and how the BBC
could best fulfil its commitment to public communication and education.”

From the Register post: ‘Individuals wanted to share their views but didn’t want it widely known that they were there’

Do the 28 not have the courage to stand behind their convictions? I would have thought not even a coward would hide when the science is so settled. Indeed in the early hours of this morning I saw a program on Russia Today where Joe Romm claimed the concensus amoung scientists was ’98 or 99%’*

How can you not stand up and reveal yourself with that of proof? Unless…

If you are of the irrationally paranoid persuasion – each and every Freedom of Information Request is obviously an orchestrated denier campaign. Only a conspiracy theorist believing the moon is made of cheddar – not gorgonzola – would not be able to figure out FOIR=possible ‘Death Threat’! I based this on Trenbath’s logic that no warming is cause to believe the warnings of warming were not alarming enough and need a higher content of fudge in the climate mix.

In such circumstances clinging to your connvictions and sanity by the tips of your chewed off fingernails is not an unreasonable position to be in. Indeed it is possible you do not fear Climate Chaos enough. Only Climate Heathens would not be throwing themselves from the climate altars to appease the Co2 offended climate gods. Only those Mann who proclaim the faith from the highest hills (safe from rising tides of people subjected to bigger and bugger waves of carbon taxes) will not need to throw themselves undr the wheels of the climate waggon as an act of faith to the indisputability of climate science.

So it shall be written because we will burn anything and possibly anyone that says otherwise.

/satire

* Apparently the remaining 1-2% of ‘deniers’ were fossil fuel funded fundamentalist foundations according to a satellite linked believer not in the studio. I believe this is the reason why ALL THREE panelists were true believers talking to an already affirmed host. I was so alarmed by what I heard in three minutes I turned off to reduce further extreme levels of emissions coming from my tv. I slept soundly knowing I had done my bit for Mighty Gaia

*******

“In tonight’s ‘Bigger Picture’ discussion Thom talks with a panel of experts about climate change and the Right’s refusal to believe in science.”

interesting that Joe Smith was also involved with Attenborough/BBC in 2006; from what i’ve read, these Real World Brainstorms were more about prepping program makers, including comedy programs, than about science. Peake’s attendance definitely likely too.

Open University: Climate Change – From science to sustainability
Second Edition
Stephen Peake and Joe Smith
Stephen Peake is senior lecturer in environmental technology at The Open University. Over the last 19 years, Stephen has worked on climate change in various interesting guises: as a researcher at the University of Cambridge, as a Fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (including a stint at the Shell International Petroleum Company), as a Fonctionnaire at the International Energy Agency within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris, and as a diplomat with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany…
***He (Joe Smith) led the team of academic consultants on David Attenborough’s BBC ONE programmes for the 2006 climate change season…http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Geography/Climatology/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5OTU2ODMyMQ==

International Broadcasting Trust: (The Real World Brainstorms, a series of events organised jointly with BBC Television, have continued to receive high level support from the BBC. This innovative project, launched in 2004, brings together television executives and developing world experts to debate tv coverage of the developing world and work together to brainstorm ideas for future programming.)
2005
Interestingly, we also had representatives from drama, comedy, features and factual entertainment. For the first time, several independent producers were also present.
2006
A one day event was held in London on January 26 2006, focusing on climate change and
its impact on development. The brainstorm brought together 28 BBC executives and
independent producers…http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/dialogue/Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20update%2030Jul08.pdf

The reason institutions like the BBC are semi arms length from government is quite simple. They are not publicly accountable and the government’s influence which is mighty is largely unseen. As long as you (read party in power) controls the appointments then it is dogma and ideology not rational thought that runs the show.

RoyFOMR says:
“Goodness me. Here we have an organisation funded from public funds that has been accused of covering up internal claims of child abuse AND spending large amounts of money to maintain secrecy about its Climate Science investigates.”

It was the BBC bias that started me down the road to understanding the AGW fraud. I had been looking for support that it was real as it would have enhanced my career in alternate energy sources. In Jan/Feb 2005 the BBC did a long piece on the melting of the arctic ice which the BBC described as being due to Pacific current changes pushing warm water into the Arctic which melted ice which created a positive feedback loop making the sea even warmer and melting more ice, and so on. Great I thought to myself. Someone is honestly assessing the cause of the warming and ice melting. Nope. After all the discussion of the cause being the Pacific currents what did the BBC conclude? That we need to reduce CO2.

The BBC is only kidding itself if it believes it can spin the news to give a conclusion opposite of common sense and the research. The 76% who don’t trust the BBC (mentioned above) is evidence of this.

If the aguments were truly scientifically compelling, they wouldn’t be afraid share them with the public. In fact, they wouldn’t be afraid to have them compete with opposing arguments in public. This leads me to the conclusion that the arguments must be politically or emotionally based, rather than being based on solid science. If the science was valid, there would be no fear to have their analysis publicly debated. I know of no other branch of science that behaves this way. I have read and watched hundreds of pieces over the years dealing with everything from string theory to genetics, presented for the layman, almost always chronicling many past and present contoversies, disagreements and uncertainties. Why is nothing ever done like this with climate change? The only thing we’re ever presented with is a simplistic little picture of solar rays bouncing off the earth and being absorbed by CO2. The articles and programs then go on with excruciating details of how this is going to cause the world to end, without ever questioning the premise. Odd. Truly odd.

Anyone from outside the UK wont know anything about the London district of Haringey
I wish they could as they would realize the significance of what this woman’s politics would have to be, to have been elected to this council.

Absolutely disgusting that the BBC can do this. But then they always have been and always will be the propaganda arm of the status quo /government. Any notion of impartiality is a joke.

Please follow up this post with an article about the way the BBC covered up for the pedophile Jimmy Saville, so that readers of WUWT can really appreciate the full glory of the BBC

How can it possibly be right to take the decision to give no time to the climate realist viewpoint and furthermore, go to court to defend the identities of the cabal of people who actually were the only input into that decision? How can you possibly defend giving something as important as the global warming question, the same unique protection you once gave to the policy of appeasement?

I thought that 97% of climate scientists believed in CAGW. If all 28 ie 100% of the BBC advisers took that position before the BBC policy was formulated then they were unrepresentatiive of views and hence partial before they became partial. A disgrace up with which we should not put.

Should the co2 climate alarmists succeed in harming the economy and increasing unemployment in the US just as the continuing lack of sunspots produce ever deepening cold causing some degree of hardship amongst the American people, I can understand why those advisors who are domiciled in the US would want to retain anonymity given the national gun culture that prevails over there.

Whereas in the UK we treat our national failures and economic destroyers of peoples livelihood rather differently by giving them multi million pound pensions to retire. Something of a time honoured practise over here.

Brainwashed Broadcasting Company
Blatantly Biased Company
Boo Boo Company
Biased Brainwashed Company

The BBC actively seeking to destroy the very foundations of democracy.
At least they have invested their pensions in their own ignorance of reality.

How is it possible to be so completely taken in by failed climate models which have been getting it very badly wrong since the eighties and are still no closer to reality 30 years on. Presumably they listened to 28 blinkered viewpoints yapping on about co2 and didn’t once see a graph of reality, Hansen’s glorious failure which climate models have yet to improve on.

You would think that if part of either of the ‘B’s in ‘BBC’ had ever stood for balanced that they would have sought more than one viewpoint, or that they would have had a public discussion on the matter. The saying “you cannot legislate against stupidity” comes to mind.

Perhaps WUWT can crowd source the names of the 28. If it turns out that the Sun which does generate heat rather than co2 which doesn’t generate heat is what controls temperatures on Earth, then these guys can be famous, everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame don’t they ?

Why did I think RT usually provided something of an antidote to this stuff, or dies it just take extreme positions to rificule thrm ? Im never too sure how to take them.
——————————————————————————————————————

First remember that RT is Russian propaganda that is always designed to reduce American self confidence.

That said I am appalled and astonished to see those three lying and exaggerating on RT. Appalled by the sheer mendacity of all three and astonished that the “team” has realised how poor their plight is that they need to convince a pile of self hating American conspiracists the we need to stop burning stuff because all the sensible folk see right through their nonsense.

Watch it guys. We can counter everything they say with data. Pure data.

Some of the BBC’s classical music radio output isn’t bad, although even thst’s not as varied and fascinating as it used to be. And, er, that’s it. The news programmes are biased crap, the science programmes are biased crap, and most of their “entertainment” seems to be aimed at those with an IQ somewhat below a usable average. Oh, and the technical quality of their output has sunk from outstanding to lowest passable. All we have now is a sort of zombie Beeb – it looks a bit like the BBC, it sounds a bit like the BBC, but it no longer has any authority or respectability left, as this farce proves.

Sad. I miss what they used to be, or at least what they used to seem to be.

Anyone from outside the UK wont know anything about the London district of Haringey
I wish they could as they would realize the significance of what this woman’s politics would have to be, to have been elected to this council.
*********************************************************************************
Yes, I clocked this too. One of the looniest of loony left councils, beyond doubt.

So, who actually gets to pick the people who sit on an information tribunal?

I’m grateful to the BBC, because would it not be for the BBC’s grotesque global warming “climate change” propaganda I wouldn’t have spent time early on and educate myself on this subject.
It must have been just after that global warming policy meeting I started to discover the magnitude of this greatest of all scientific swindle and the political connections between the environmental movement, the politicians, big business and academia.
I remember reading on BBC’s website that frog were dying off in Costa Rica because of global warming.
Knowing that the temperature increase in the tropics should have been modest or maybe even non existent and that frog in Costa Rica could easily cool of by jumping up the mountain 50 meter or so. Costa Rica is hilly.
I asked myself how could the claim that the frogs were dying off because of global warming pass peer-review? Aren’t there any people in academia with common sense anymore?
The die off turned out later to be caused by a fungus.
The number of similar silly reports on the BBC’s website just got worse and worse.
I have to admit that to follow this subject has been most fascinating while at the same time the corruption is scary.

M White:”“You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.”

Soon I’ll be sending a cheque for £145 to pay for my TV licence…
____________________________
Makes me think of this where a Man writes check on 2-ply toilet paper to settle a bill over a dispute over his water bill.

…We work with all sorts of people from national government departments and local authorities through to corporate companies and NGOs. They include: BT, BBC,…

pdf include an application form for a “Communicating Climate Change” master class in 2006

From Real Climate: (It is worth taking a look at the comments before they POOF)

Communicating Science & Technology
— rasmus @ 23 June 2006

I recently attented a conference on communicating science and technology in Tromsø, Norway June 6-9 (CST060606)…. one by Lawrence Krauss (Science under Attack) should not be missed. Also, the presentation by the nobel laurate Ivar Giaever provides a lot of food for thought, and Janet Sumner told how the science can be ‘jazzed up’ and made more accesible on the BBC…. The conference was attended by scientists, teachers, politicians, and people from the media….http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/communicating-science-technology/

Simon Retallack is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) where he oversees the Low Carbon Programme.

More newsprint, broadcast time and web space is being devoted to the issue of climate change than ever before, so it would not be a surprise if journalists were to pat themselves on the back for their efforts. Far from it. On 18-21 May 2006 at a country retreat in northern Germany, journalists and writers from Britain, Germany and the United States will be meeting to discuss where they are going wrong and how they can do better.… http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/ankelohe_3550.jsp

GAG!
There is a whole manure bucket full of “Communicating Climate Change” conferences for journalists back in 2006. Anyone who does not believe that this was a full frontal propaganda attack only has to read a few of the 3,950,000 results pulled up by an internet search for [attended “Communicating Climate Change” BBC 2006 ]

I have to remind you that the BBC is a publicly funded body, and as such this refusal is a smack in the face to every licence-fee payer. As shareholders and stakeholders in the BBC, we demand you release those names. And what are they afraid of, eh? I thought the ‘science was settled’? So why do these so-called scientists cower behind Auntie’s apron?

Perhaps you need to be warned once more, that the BBC has lost all credibility. The ship is soon to flounder, and you will be one of the officers on deck when she goes down. We shall not mourn the BBC’s passing, nor your signing on at the benefit office.

So…
a private organisation, funded by UK taxpayers, holds a secret conclave of ‘best scientific experts’ (including non-scientists) to legitimise its long-standing partiality in respect of AGW, refuses to disclose the names of the said experts and has this refusal backed by a tribunal of three, at least one of whom is an environmental campaigner.
As a novelist, I’d be pleased to have the imagination to conceive such a plot.

10 Nov: WaPo: Nick Answeaon: Data errors could spell ‘slight change’ for GWU ranking
The flaw in GWU’s method, officials said, was that the university estimated how many of those students were likely to have been in the top 10 percent of their classes. Then, they said, it mistakenly combined those estimates with documented class rank figures…
For its 1997 freshmen, GWU reported the share as 45 percent, a percentage that remained stable for a few years. For 2002 freshmen, the share jumped to 61 percent. For 2006, it was 65 percent. For 2010, it was 74 percent.
University officials said they have not calculated what the actual percentage should have been during those years. But they said that they are strengthening administrative oversight of data collection and reporting and that the information will be routinely audited in coming years…
Critics of the U.S. News rankings say that universities should not give the list credibility — a point they want to reinforce following this year’s disclosures about Claremont McKenna, Emory and GWU…http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/data-errors-could-spell-slight-change-for-gwu-ranking/2012/11/09/04acb40c-2aad-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html

It’s good to know that all parts of the BBC stand unified in their fight against BIG OIL and climate change. You won’t see them snuggling up to big oil and using nasty tactics as used by deniers and the tobacco industry /SARC

LOL. the british public would no doubt be delighted if the beeb would pay its own way, and the Licence Fee was scrapped:

9 Nov: Independent: Chris Bryant: Don’t bash the BBC too much. You know you’ll miss it when it’s gone
Even Chris Patten, the chairman of the BBC, sounds deeply downbeat about the future
Chris Patten addressed the trustees’ dinner at the British Museum on Wednesday. Speaking in the Enlightenment Gallery, he gave the most lugubrious, depressed, downbeat speech I have yet heard, either from him or from a BBC chairman. It was as if the whole weight of the world were upon his shoulders.
Sure, the BBC has a lot to answer for over what seems to have been a systemic failure to tackle Jimmy Savile and others. But for God’s sake don’t give up on the BBC. Bear in mind that, day by day, the extremely dedicated people who have always hated the corporation for personal, ideological or commercial reasons are grinding their axes. They got their way immediately after the election when the BBC was slashed by 25 per cent in one of the strangest and most secretive of government negotiations. BBC journalists are now being double-decimated. Production budgets were slashed, and doubtless Rupert Murdoch and his Tory acolytes are happy.
So I want Lord Patten not to lose faith in what remains the greatest British cultural invention of the 20th century. ..http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/dont-bash-the-bbc-too-much-you-know-youll-miss-it-when-its-gone-8301285.html

Wikipedia: John Ashton (diplomat)
John Ashton CBE was the Special Representative for Climate Change at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) from 2006 until June 2012, Director for Strategic Partnerships at LEAD International, and is the founder and CEO of Third Generation Environmentalism…
***From 1993-7, John Ashton was seconded to the Hong Kong Government as Deputy Political Adviser to Governor Chris Patten.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashton_(diplomat)

Foreign & Commonwealth Office: John Ashton: Special Representative for Climate Change
John has spent most of his career in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). He founded and led its Environment Policy Department, before moving outside government in 2002, to set up environmental think-tank E3G, from which he is now seconded to the FCO.
John has been continuously active in climate diplomacy in various capacities since 1997. He was involved in negotiating the EU 2020 package on climate change in spring 2007 and the decision in December 2008 on funding for CCS across Europe. He helped negotiate the agreement in 2005 between the EU and China to demonstrate zero emission coal technology in China, and was closely involved in the EU’s engagement with Russia over the Kyoto Protocol. He played a key role in the first UN security debate on climate change in April 2007. He was a senior member of the UK negotiating team in the UN climate negotiations from 1998-2002, and again at Copenhagen…http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/who-we-are/special-representatives/john-ashton

8 Sept: BBC: John Ashton: World’s most wanted: climate change
Human-induced climate change must be treated as an immediate threat to national security and prosperity, says John Ashton, the UK’s climate change envoy. He argues that we must secure a stable climate whatever the cost, as failure to do so will cost far more.
Climate change is potentially the most serious threat there has ever been to this most fundamental of social contracts.
On 28 August 2005, New Orleans was a prosperous, stable and relatively harmonious city. By the next evening, most of its population had been driven from their homes and lacked access to electricity, food, fresh water and medical services.
Within a week, gunmen roamed the streets as law and order broke down; simmering racial and political tensions exploded as the buck for dealing with the catastrophe – as well as preventing it – was hurled about. For months, neighbouring cities and states were inundated with refugees as the political and racial stresses spilled across the country. New Orleans is unlikely ever fully to recover…
Katrina and Darfur illustrate how an unstable climate will make it harder to deliver security unless we act more effectively now to neutralise the threat.
Our prosperity is also at stake. Europe’s economic health increasingly depends on a thriving Chinese economy…
Last week, Professor John Holdren, the newly elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a distinguished scientist ***not noted for sensational pronouncements***, told the BBC: “We are not talking any more about what climate models say might happen in the future. We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we are going to experience more.”
What this means is that we need to treat climate change not as a long-term threat to our environment but as an immediate threat to our security and prosperity.
We need to see a stable climate as a public good without which it will become increasingly difficult to deliver the other public goods that citizens rightly expect from those who govern them…
You cannot use military force to make everyone else on the planet reduce their carbon emissions. No weapon system can halt the advance of a hurricane bearing down on a city, or stem the rising sea, or stop the glaciers melting.
If we want to achieve climate security, governments will need to invest more resources in the emerging techniques of soft power…
Governments will need, as a matter of security, to build the avenues of trust and opportunity that will divert investment from high carbon to low carbon infrastructure.
They will need to negotiate the agreements that will enable us to do that cost-effectively and without divisive market distortions. They will need to design and mobilise coalitions of mutual interest across sectoral and cultural boundaries to transform the way we supply and consume energy, achieve mobility, and use land.
And they will need to do all of this very fast. It is now becoming increasingly clear that it is what we do in the next 15 years that matters most.
The technologies to avoid an even more unstable climate are already available. Deploying them rapidly is well within what we can afford. What is needed is an investment internationally of political imagination backed up by public resources on the scale that publics routinely expect for the more traditional aspects of national security.
But, as scientists like John Holdren are warning with mounting urgency, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
If we fail to see this threat to security very soon for what it is and make our dispositions accordingly, we will end up paying far more and experiencing more insecurity. John Ashton is the UK foreign secretary’s special representative for climate change and a visiting professor at Imperial College London. This article reflects his personal views.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5323512.stm

22 June 2012: Guardian: Juliette Howit: Climate change envoy warns against cutting investment in green energy
John Ashton warns that failure to deal with climate change would amplify problems such as water and food insecurity
John Ashton, who has just stepped down from his post at the Foreign Office, told MPs that the UK was still considered an influential global player on climate change, but signalled that position was at risk as the country was falling behind on investment in energy efficiency and clean energy…
These issues came to a head in February when more than 100 Conservative MPs signed a letter to the prime minister, David Cameron, calling for an end to onshore windfarms.
Ashton, who left his six-year post two weeks ago, said he sympathised with concerns that UK efforts to combat climate change would be an expensive failure if other countries did not follow suit. However in a thinly-veiled warning about the damage done by draining political support for ‘green’ policies, he said the UK’s diplomatic efforts to persuade other countries to reduce the world’s reliance on oil and other fossil fuels “depends on what we are doing at home” and the “consensus across the political spectrum”…
“Internationally we must resolve the false choice, exacerbated by the current crisis, between economic security and climate security,” said Ashton. “A rapid shift to low carbon growth is essential for security, competitiveness and prosperity, not an intolerable risk to competitiveness, jobs and growth.”
“Politically we must address this not as a distraction from our current problems, but as part of the solution to them,” he added.
Tory committee member Dr Phillip Lee challenged Ashton, however, suggesting that there were still hundreds of millions of people who wanted a better standard of living in developing countries like China, and in the UK during the recession, who would not support policies which pushed up the price of energy and so goods and services they wanted to buy.
“It’s seen that going green is going to slow down the growth that we need,” added Lee.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/22/uk-climate-policy-risk-government

8 June 2006: BBC: Richard Black: UK appoints ‘climate ambassador’
His appointment, as Margaret Beckett’s representative, follows her move from the environment portfolio to become Foreign Secretary.
Friends of the Earth welcomed the move, but warned that Britain’s position was undermined by its rising emissions.
“One of the areas where climate change needs to be prioritised by the British government is in the diplomatic service, and we do need someone who can help Britain maximise its leverage in countries across the world,” Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK, told the BBC News website.
“We welcome John Ashton in this role – he is a proven advocate with a track record in helping to move the global community forward on climate change, notably in terms of persuading Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.”
A science graduate, Mr Ashton has spent most of his career in the diplomatic service and the Foreign Office (FCO).
He was an advisor to Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten, as Britain prepared to hand the then colony back to China.
More recently Mr Ashton headed the FCO’s Environment, Science and Energy department, before leaving to form a totally new scheme called E3G, a “change agency”, which has brokered deals on climate and energy between developed and developing countries…
“Last year, the UK and the prime minister himself created a new situation on climate change,” he told the BBC News website.
“By using the G8 presidency in the way he did, he opened an international conversation at head of government level on climate change and recognising the scale and severity of challenge.
“The challenge now is to give a sense of direction to that, to create an international framework capable of mobilising the investment decisions which will be necessary to drive the shift from a high-carbon economy to a low-carbon economy,” Mr Ashton outlined…http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5057678.stm

8 Sept 2006: BBC: Richard Black: Solve climate ‘whatever it costs’
Climate change is “potentially the most serious threat there has ever been” to security and prosperity, according to Britain’s new climate ambassador. In an article for the BBC News website – his first since taking the post in June – John Ashton says climate change must be tackled “whatever it costs”…
As special representative on climate change for the British foreign secretary, John Ashton’s main role is to build a new international consensus on climate change…
According to Felix Dodds, co-editor of the recent book Human Environmental Security – an Agenda for Change, diplomatic failure on climate change may well lead to conflict.
“John Ashton is right in his analysis, and international discussions are critical to solving this issue,” he said, “because the alternative is you do end up with military solutions.
“There is a time window, and that window is 10 to 15 years – if we don’t deal with it now, the reality is we will have to use military means to secure water, food, and energy security.”…http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5325714.stm

1 Feb 2006: BBC: Can the US break its oil addiction?
Although Mr Bush did not mention climate change in his speech, the impact of a warming world must have had some influence, says John Ashton, chief executive of environmental think-tank E3G.
“There must be some climate change thinking behind his references to zero-emissions coal because the only reason for capturing emissions is for climate reasons.
“I would be looking for a sign that the US administration would be willing to invest in the range of technologies on a scale and with an urgency that will make a real impact on the climate problem.”…http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4669260.stm

28 June 2007: BBC Profile: John Ashton
Mr Ashton had a long career in the Foreign Office, including founding its environmental policy department, before moving outside government…
In 2004 he founded E3G, an independent not-for-profit organisation that works to make people and companies more environmentally friendly, by getting them to collaborate and by identifying clear goals…
Mr Ashton is a visiting professor at Imperial College, London, and a member of the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding.
He is a steering committee member of Climate Care and serves on the Advisory Boards of the Climate Institute, Washington DC; the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara; and Climate Change Capital.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6769105.stm

one of the silliest headlines ever & the day Attenborough put his credibility on the line!

24 May 2006: BBC: Attenborough: Climate is changing
Sir David, 80, added that everyone had a responsibility to change their behaviour, including being less wasteful and more energy efficient.
It is the first time Sir David has voiced his concerns in public about the impacts of global warming.
His comments come ahead of a two-part BBC series in which he examines the impacts of global warming on the Earth.
Sir David has been criticised by environmentalists in the past for not speaking out on the matter.
“If you take one moment in time, you can’t be sure what the trend is,” he told the BBC.
“Now… when we look at the graphs of rising ocean temperatures, rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and so on, we know that they are climbing far more steeply than can be accounted for by the natural oscillation of the weather.”
Sir David, whose distinguished broadcasting career spans more than half a century, says everyone has a responsibility to act: “What people (must) do is to change their behaviour and their attitudes.
“If we do care about our grandchildren then we have to do something, and we have to demand that our governments do something…
This week, former US Vice President Al Gore has been at the Cannes Film Festival to promote a documentary on climate change.
Mr Gore told festival goers that the world was facing a “planetary emergency” due to global warming…http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5012266.stm

Wikipedia: Are We Changing Planet Earth?
Are We Changing Planet Earth? and Can We Save Planet Earth? are two programmes that form a documentary about global warming, presented by David Attenborough. They were first broadcast in the United Kingdom on 24 May and 1 June 2006 respectively.
Part of a themed season by the BBC entitled “Climate Chaos”, the programmes were produced in conjunction with the Discovery Channel and the Open University. They were directed by Nicolas Brown and produced by Jeremy Bristow…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_We_Changing_Planet_Earth%3F

Serac Adventure Films: Climate Chaos (BBC) and Global Warming: What You Need to Know with Tom Brokaw (Discovery)
Director: Nicolas Brown
Producer: Jeremy Bristow
Cinematographer and Health and Safety (Glacier Segment, Chile): Michael Brown
Awards:
September 16, 2007: Global Warming: What You Need to Know with Tom Brokaw won the category Excellence in an On-Going News Story – Long Form at the The 59th Annual News Emmy Awards.
Climate Chaos won the grand prize at the International Wildlife Film Festival in Missoula, plus some 6 other categories.
The films hves also been designated the most important science films of 2006 by the European Broadcast Commission (Eurovision)…
The project culminated in the Dicovery Channel two-hour special “Global Warming: What You Need To Know with Tom Brokaw”, which premiered on July 16, 2006, and the BBC special “Climate Chaos,” a two-part series including, “Are We Changing Planet Earth?” and “Can We Save Planet Earth?”http://www.seracfilms.com/projects/climate_chaos/Climatechange.htm

It is my observation that when an organisation pursues a cultural pathway that is faulty, eventually the mess hits multiple fans and the organisation pays multiply for its inappropriate behaviour. In the case at hand, the BBC uses multiple lawyers to quash an FOI request. Meanwhile the DG didn’t even know that a defamatory program that incorrectly implicated a former Government Minister in child abuse was being aired. Something systemically wrong methinks. Commonalities: 1) focused on the wrong thing, 2) inadequate research before adopting a position, 3) blatant left wing bias.

Ok, the head of the BBC has taken the honourable course and resigned. He’s been in that position, for what, about two months?
Why has he resigned?
‘Cos of the child-sex abuse issues?
Newsnight’s messed-up but gleeful nomination of an ex-Tory grandee as a paedo-perp?
The semi-marxist positioning of the BBC in matters of political posturing such as Global Warming reporting, Anti-Republican US political support or application of Left-Wing, Political-Correctness to matters of a verdant hue?
I don’t think so but any one of these issues would have been valid for resignation from public office of an organisation that is paid to be impartial.
Yup, all of these things happened before he came on watch and, like a lamb, he’s folded He’s been made the fall guy; he’s accepted that role for whatever reason and, now that ‘honour’ has been satisfied, the dear old Auntie BBC will just carry-on as before.
And with the same old actors …
What an effing travesty!!!!

The BBC should be “just” a voice besides others, but somehow the Brits have a system that makes the BBC their main voice. The basic flaw then is in this system from which the BBC sprouts, and not in the BBC itself. In Holland, in a basic tv channel packet, from England there is only the BBC, but say from Germany there are at least four different channels, ARD, ZDF, NDR and WDR. The Brits may be proud of their BBC, but actually they score poorly here.

I have a theory about the Brits not being conquered for many centuries being very traditional and holding on to their we-feeling opposite the world and therefore holding on to their “dear BBC” as a national symbol. That may serve a national purpose, but on a global scale it reduces the BBC to a political instrument.

BBC admits receiving millions in grants from EU and councils
The BBC admitted in a letter to a Tory MP that it has received nearly £3million in grant money from the European Union over the past four years.

Other grants totalling £16million came from local authorities across the UK. The money was spent on “research and development projects”.

The broadcaster also disclosed that its commercial arm BBC Worldwide borrowed over £141million from the European Investment Bank since 2003. Of that figure £30million is still due to be repaid by the end of May this year.
Conservative MP Karl McCartney, who obtained the information through a Parliamentary Question, said he was concerned that receiving the money could affect the way the BBC covers events in the European Union.

So don’t expect to see the BBC rushing to recruit lots more PhD level scientists to write about science any time soon. [I make the assumption that they must employ at least one such person, even though it usually seems otherwise]. When I grew up the BBC actually broadcast Open University science-degree modules during the small and unfashionable hours of the day. Long gone. It’s sad.

And these are by no means the only reasons why the BBC currently gives a good impression of someone trying to reach the moon by digging multiple deep holes in the ground.

Role and duties of the BBC Trust
B1.1 The Trust will monitor and hold the Executive Board to account for the BBC’s
compliance with the BBC Editorial Guidelines and other relevant codes and
guidelines.9 In particular, the Trust will do all that it can to ensure that the
accuracy and impartiality code is complied with.10

This alone surely means that the names should be revealed by law unless the impartiality code says they need not be impartial when they feel like it which did not appear in anything I read.
To have a peacetime policy of deliberate deception no matter how much you may believe in a particular cause is totally inappropriate for a public broadcaster. I accept that occasionally for short periods it might be required but not as a long term strategy and certainly not for a theory that would never stand outside scrutiny and has to be held to peer review to survive.

For our US friends not familiar with what’s currently happening at the BBC – it is in a bloodbath over child abuse, child rape, necrophilia scandal of unprecendented proportions. Sir Jimmy Savile had been a DJ / television presenter at the BBC since the 1960s. He died in 2011.

The story and rumors have been going on for decades, but lets start in early 2012.

John Humphrys interviews George Entwhistle (starts @ 1:35:00 til 1:50:00)
BBC Radio 4 Today News Programme Saturday 10Nov2012
The beef is here:-
J.H. > So you have no natural curiosity? 1:42:12
J.H. > No, the BBC has had two serious blows 1:44:42
J.H. > Not with you at all, you are entirely blameless? 1:49:14

Yes, the progressives targetted the hiring process in the media, and have subsequently stuffed the broadcasting and print outlets with fellow travellers and co-group-thinkers. They hate Murdoch, who made fortunes by resisting them. They sneer at “Faux” News, yet it runs circles around the corral that holds the lot of them.

Together with their counterparts in the “civil services” and rent-dispensing political class, they think they have the public’s finances firmly under control.

oldseadog says:
November 11, 2012 at 1:45 am
You are all going on about the BBC, but all of the MSM is covering AGW in exactly the same way.

Not exactly. The BBC has been an unusually outspoken, incessant, and unfair cheerleader for CAGW. And its offenses are more egregious than the privately run MSM outlets like the Guardian because its charter commits it to impartiality.

This should be across the entire range of the BBC and broad sweeping changes to their science reporting./ At the moment they are a very faulty organisation, and as this shows, perhaps we could contact the BBC to show that their abeyance of standards in this area highlighted above is parallel, perhaps even causative, of the inadequacies of their perpective of climate science.

In fact, it is likely that the culture of corruption and self interest under the influence of the dominant paradigm of climate science has given rise to this culture of bias and corruption across the general culture.

Their attitude is “We can use FOI to find out what we want, but nobody can use FOI against us. Our job is to gather knowledge and keep it secret, so we can use it as extortion tools to increase our budget and power.”

American media have the same attitude, but because they aren’t publicly funded it’s not quite as egregious or obvious.

Stephen Rasey says: November 10, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Seems to me the honorable course would have been to fire those who made the fallacious broadcast accusations. THEN resign.
______________________________________

It would appear that the accusations were confused rather than fallacious. It would appear that the boy who was abused identified Sir McAlpine of Wrexham as his abuser (a location near to the children’s home), and both he and the police were under the mistaken impression that Sir McAlpine and Lord McAlpine were the same person. They are not. One was a construction company owner, the other is a Conservative peer.

Now surely this is the kind of mistake that a professional media company should have resolved, rather than jumping to stupid conclusions – conclusion that they wanted to jump to, because the BBC will do anything to denigrate the Conservatives. This is a bit like CNN trying to dig for dirt on the Republicans – it has become a corporate sport.

The BBC is no longer the professional media company or organization that it was. It has filled its ranks with liberal airheads, instead of the best and the brightest, and often simply because they were of the right minority grouping. Thus the BBC is stacked full of gays and ethnics of less than sparkling quality, who have to share the pooled brain-cell, but they have been accepted and promoted because they tick all the right boxes (except for the box marked ‘competent’). Thus the BBC has sunk from the greatest of media corporations, to perhaps the worst – and all in the name of inclusivity.

From Christopher Booker,London Sunday Telegraph
Anyone who wants a detailed account of that BBC seminar in 2006 and its consequences for BBC coverage of climate change issues over the years that followed

The Register quotes Helen Boaden as saying “external invitees” were “representatives from business, campaigners, NGOs, communications experts, people from the ‘front line’, scientists with contrasting views and academics”.

From those 7 categories I wonder how many were really scientific experts. Also, “scientists with contrasting views” doesn’t necessarily mean that they were on the opposite sides of the fence. Sounds like weasel wording to me with the aim of implying that there was some balance. Had there been one or more real scientists present to put forward the sceptical view, would that person or persons not have made themselves known by now?

It’s blatantly obvious that the BBC is loathe to reveal who the 28 were because that will completely undermine the basis of the agenda that has been relentlessly pursued for the past 6 years.

The BBC trustworthy? Most definitely not. All the more so when they have allocated tax payers money for the purposes of concealing their surreptitious activities. That will come back to bite them in due course.

“The BBC is in deep s–t at the moment after the disclosure of a name of a man accused of child molestation.This disclosure had no evidence on which to base it apart from the hearsay evidence from a victim. ”

Your evidence for this statement being the BBC? The Irony, in a thread about a BBC cover-up, is striking!

J Martin – I have instructed the Television Licensing Authority (BBC) to cancel my direct debit. I will be taking my television down the tip and will not be replacing it.

Waste of good hardware. Don’t forget that it’s perfectly legal to use the tv in the UK to watch prerecorded films such as DVDs provided you remove the external signal wire and tape or glue up the aerial or cable socket.to make it crystal clear that you don’t receive live signals.

BBC needs ‘radical overhaul’, says Lord Patten
Home Secretary Theresa May told Marr it was the right decision for Mr Entwistle to go.

“At the core of question about the Newsnight piece on north Wales is a question about the quality of journalism… I think the BBC has got a job to do to restore that trust.”http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20286198

When CAGW falls people will lose trust – again – then there will be more inquires.

This is slightly similar to how it is in Sweden, where the (“advertising free“) national TV channels do “advertising” in order for people to pay the television license. As a reason, they say they produce “good“, “objective” and (political / religious) “independent” programs. With several climate threat fiction shows per month, all the arguments fails …

In Norway it is simpler. The NrK is our public channel, explicitely modelled after the BBC, complete with mandatory “NrK-license”. You pay if you own a device capable of receiving TV, simple as that.

Then they don’t bother to call NrK “adverticing free” (it isn’t), no it is consistently referred to as a “free” channel (as opposed to “pay-TV”), even though NrK is by far the most expensive channel, and there’s a law against not paying for it.

And yes, it is full of CAGW scares and other objective information. I stopped watching its “news” a few years ago. I don’t appreciate being taken for an idiot.

The Oz equivalent of the BBC is the ABC and also has extreme bias in favour of CAGW. I’ve made 13 formal complaints mainly about the so-called “The Science Show” on radio. To give you some idea how bad it is as far as CAGW is concerned, the show’s host Robyn Williams is sometimes also affectionately known as “hundred metres Williams” following his assertion a year or two ago that sea levels could rise by 100 m by the end of the century. (although he is no longer eager to repeat it following certain comments he recieved).

ALL my complaints have been rejected by the “complaints department” (A&CA) cherrypicking parts of the ABC editorial policies and applying subjective weightings to their interpretations. (and ignoring other editorial policies and despite defying their statutory duties of impartiality by act of parliament etc).

My latest complaint identified 29 Science Show stories which were aired over the last year to August which were alarmist towards climate change whereas there was nothing balancing this. In reply A&CA did identify some items in news and current affairs claiming to provide balance but when examined they were largely rather soft and spread over somewhat prior times, as many as seven years before, which I pointed out was not fair. I also pointed out that “The Science Show” itself should report the science in a balanced way, and gave some missing examples such as with the plateau in global temperatures etc, but no go. A&CA claims to be an “independent” department but it answers through the ABC director of editorial policies to the editor-in-chief, which I find to be a tad odd.

Oh well, I still have this and another rejection on appeal to the independent government authority ACMA but my first such appeal took about five months and was rejected.

“Many of the BBC participants were drama and comedy producers, directors and writers. One of the aims of the seminars has been to persuade non factual programme makers to introduce international themes and stories into their programmes. As a result of the Kew seminar, the BBC commissioned Howard Brenton to write a drama on contemporary China. It is now recognised that drama, comedy and entertainment offer ways of reaching new and wider audiences”.

The bizarre links between The BBC, AGW alarmism, Howard Brenton, sexual misconduct, China and Fatty Pang (The Chinese nickname for Chris Patten onetime pisspoor Governor of Hong Kong and now the only visible head of the BBC) are there – funny old world eh?

i know i should complain, but i take the easy way out and rarely watch or listen to abc any more. in fact, i turned out before i became a CAGW sceptic, on account of the general deterioration of its programs.

11 Nov: Telegraph: Steven Swinford: Threat to Lord Patten as BBC chief gets £1.3m pay-off
Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, came under increasing pressure last night as it emerged he approved a £1.32 million severance package for George Entwistle, the former director-general
John Whittingdale, the chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, said licence fee payers would be “surprised” that he was being given so much after such a short tenure, while Philip Davies MP, who also sits on the committee, said it was “yet another reason” Lord Patten should resign…http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9671132/Threat-to-Lord-Patten-as-BBC-chief-gets-1.3m-pay-off.html

I understand your feelings, (November 11, 9:11 pm), and I should qualify that I can’t stand to listen to the so-called “Science Show”. Instead I sometimes go to their website and read any transcripts of stories that may appear to be interesting.

Hmm, so Entwistle gets the equivalent of around two million Oz$ for resigning from the BBC after a very short term….. on the surface apparently out of guilt of failure to perform! Really?

“reaching new and wider audiences” – bbc’s climate chaos page doesn’t seem to be working, but fortunately this blog has pasted the following:

23 May 2006: PS-Mag: David Attenborough Kicks Off Climate Chaos, 24 May 2006, 9pm, BBC One
By From bbc.co.uk web site
Are We Changing Planet Earth?
Wednesday 24 May, 9pm, BBC One
David Attenborough draws on his life-long insights into our planet and presents his personal take on climate change. Part two follows next week.

Songs of Praise
Sunday 28 May, TBC, BBC One
Sally Magnusson visits an environmental project in Oxford that has made a real difference to the local community, and meets with historian and environmentalist, Martin Palmer.

Test the Nation – Know Your Planet
Sunday 28 May, 8pm, BBC One
Are you aware of climate and environmental issues? We put the country to the test in the popular quiz show.

Can We Save Planet Earth?
Thursday 1 June, 9pm, BBC One
Part two of David Attenborough’s investigation.

Five Disasters Waiting to Happen
Tuesday 6 June, 9pm, BBC Two
We examine five global locations and scenarios: London, Shanghai, Mumbai, Paris and Tuvalu. All have been identified by experts as vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

The Money Programme
Friday 2 June, 7pm, BBC Two
The Money Programme spends a week with a family in Teesdale – the area with the UK’s highest CO2 emissions per capita.

Panorama
Date and time TBC, BBC One
The Bush administration has resisted calls to engage in Kyoto, and has been accused of a systematic campaign of disinformation and harassment against the scientific community – gagging scientists, re-writing major reports, and allowing the oil and coal industries to drive policy. Panorama investigates these claims.

The BBC News department has been corrupt since the war. It has been infested with public school Marxists, KGB spies and the like for years. It is the home of lick-spittle communist apologists. You can’t go on being as corrupt as that forever. Eventually the whole lot will spill out like the guts of a battered pinata.

Boaden has been the hard-liner against all FOI requests, but this probably won’t affect the Beeb’s hard line on most Stalinist causes. In fact I’d expect them to bear down even harder on Carbon, Diversity, Feminism, and the rest of the usual commie crap, after they clear out this “temporary accidental aberration” that lasted 40 years.

This excellent, well written and comprehensive summary from Christopher Booker as to how a once respected organisation (yes, the BBC was once respected) can be mis-directed by ecozealots far beyond the point of balance is as instructive as it is sad.

Exactly right, and the BBC has realised how sensitive this subject is.

That’s also why they refuse every opportunity to discuss their assertions on air and refuse to answer any questions from anyone they deem to be hostile to their carbon dioxide religion.

Interestingly, they demand openess and transparency from every organization they deal with yet claim their own activities are private/secret/confidential (take your pick) and therefore excluded from these standards by means of one of the most obscure parts of the Freedom of Information Act.

David Shukman, the BBC’s first science editor, has a BA in Geography from Durham University.

Geography is a fine discipline, but as a qualification for “science editor”?

The BBC is still involved with some good output. I’ve just watched “Richard Hammond’s Miracles of Nature” on a BBC channel. But it was made by Terra Mater Factual Studios and Oxford Scientific Films, “in association with Hamster’s Wheel Productions.”

Tip for BBC licence payers: stop paying. They have to prove that you are watching live BBC output, or have recorded for later. The TV detector van story is a fairytale. And they have no right to enter your home.

Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace – Specialist in creating scares to obtain funds
Trevor Evans, US Embassy – Specialist ‘inside man’ ensuring problem-free distribution of funds
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net – Specialist in spending said funds
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation- Specialist in spending said funds
Claire Foster, Church of England – Specialist in Hell-fire, which will engulf all those who do not mend their ways…
Saleemul Huq, IIED- Specialist in living off said funds
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China- Specialist in living off said funds
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia- Specialist in living off said funds
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos- Specialist in living off said funds
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund- Specialist in living off said funds
Anita Neville, E3G- Specialist in living off said funds
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia- Specialist in living off said funds

You will note that there are many more specialists in spending these funds than there are obtaining them. This is because the amount obtained is so large that it takes about 10 people to spend the finds that one person can obtain. Look how hard they are working for/with this money…

One of those in attendance, conservative commentator Richard D North, has gone public with his take on the event:

‘I found the seminar frankly shocking, The BBC crew (senior executives from every branch of the Corporation) were matched by a equal number of specialists, almost all (and maybe all) of whom could be said to have come from the ‘we must support Kyoto’ school of climate change activists… I was frankly appalled by the level of ignorance of the issue which the BBC people showed.,I mean that I heard nothing which made me think any of them read any broadsheet newspaper coverage of the topic (except maybe the Guardian and that lazily).

‘Though they purported to be aware that this was an immensely important topic, it seemed to me that none of them had shown even a modicum of professional curiosity on the subject … I spent the day discussing the subject and I don’t recall anyone showing any sign of having read anything serious at all. I argued at the seminar that I thought most broadcasting coverage on climate change was awful. But I also said there was no need for them to become self-conscious about it, This was because, although the issues were scientifically, politically and economically difficult, the BBC’s reporting of the thing would improve as soon as their audience was asked to vote or pay for climate change policy.’

The only name that rang a bell was Roger Harrabin. Why would anyone in Oxfam be taken seriously in matters of “Climate Science”? No wonder the BBC wanted to prevent the public from knowing how undistinguished their “Experts” are.

My heart sank seeing that Cambridge university was a major player, especially when I saw this:
“Linda Yueh, Fellow in Economics, Pembroke College”

Linda works at Pembroke College, Oxford. The real Pembroke College was founded in Cambridge in 1347 by Mary Valence, Duchess of Pembroke. More than six hundred years before “Women’s Lib” there were amazing women doing remarkable things. Every five years my name comes up for the “Foundress’ Feast”. Even though it is a long way from Florida to the other UEA (University of East Anglia) I make the trip.

The present “Master” of Pembroke College (Cambidge) is Sir Richard Dearlove who used to be “M” at MI6. Another “Master” was Nicholas Ridley, burned at the stake in 1555. Even though the college is tiny (~600 students) it can boast a chapel designed by Christopher Wren and alumni such as Edmund Spenser, William Pitt (the younger), G.G. Stokes, Tom Sharpe, Willliam Sulston (Nobel laureate), Roger Williams (founder of Rhode island) and Ray Dolby (Dolby Digital Audio). Recent alumni include some of the funniest people of recent memory, including Peter Cook, Eric Idle, Bill Oddie and Tim Brooke-Taylor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembroke_College,_Cambridge

The lawn you see in the top right photo is for the amazingly cut throat game called “Croquet”. There is a much larger lawn for Elizabethan “Bowls” but that is reserved for the faculty. My room was on the ground floor of “R” staircase on the left side of the photo. Back then (1958) there was no central heating or hot water so it got pretty chilly in the winter.

There is a link between the Savile affair, the Newsnight controversy, big pay offs to failed managers, and the BBC taking an overtly partial position on climate change – and that is “trust”. The BBC as many have said is a unique publically funded non-profit institution that depends entirely for its survival on UK tax-payers agreeing each year to buy a licence. If they stop then the BBC folds. As one of those licence fee payers I feel that on the issue of AGW the BBC has taken a political position, it is one that I disagree with and I was not in any way consulted. The process by which the decision to adopt the IPCC position on all matters relating to the climate was opaque. For me this raises doubts in my mind that I can trust the BBC on important matters.